Sunday, March 11, 2012

Liberalism described

The liberalism that I mention here, with its synonym adjective progressive, means the following:

Under the overriding rubric ofequality for all,
a value that is deemed beyond criticism,
Liberalism's goal
is to constantly increase
the status, the wealth and the power
of specially designated subjacent groups
--to be named as victims--at the expense ofandto the detriment of
the status, the wealth and the power
of specially designated successful groups
--to be named as oppressors.--

Liberalism's methods
are

the continual expansion

of the State's coercive power of regulation and taxation,

and the use of various forms of socio-cultural control:

news media, entertainment, education, language.

It is an egalitarian narrative of revenge-by-replacement, a punitive Manichean melodrama of victimization and oppression. The goal, while preached as equality and non-discrimination, is actually to replace one system of dominance with another. Liberalism is therefore revolutionary, but by increments in State power and cultural change.

While preaching open-mindedness and tolerance, it actually requires Borg-like dogmatism and total compliance, regardless of the claims of fact or outcome. It bears all the marks of a crypto-religious faith and can be usefully understood as a toxically degraded form of Western Christianity.

Liberalism's synonym is progressive because it is continuous and has no internal brake. Once a problem has been addressed, others will follow it. There are always new problems for the Liberal State and Culture to "solve."

All Liberal programs and agendas eventually require more State regulation and more taxation. It is their answer to everything. Even where the first step appears to be a removal of barriers or disliked laws, the second step is always a forest of supporting laws and regulations designed to protect whatever has just been "liberated."

Contemporary Liberalism is a form of zero-sum Gramscian cultural Marxism in that it aims for an expansionist dictatorship of seven interlocking "proletariats" consisting of racial, gender, economic, and ideological groups which will completely replace any traditionally successful or powerful (but always non-Liberal) groups.

The victim groups, because they are considered to be victims lacking power, have unlimited moral capital; the successful groups, because they are considered oppressors holding power, have no moral capital at all. Liberals thus have no defense against the desires of victims (codes as "needs" or "rights"), whatever they may be.

The currency and coin of the realm of Liberalism is perceived moral superiority. This is always the real desire.

Eg, in any conflict between Blacks and Whites, Blacks are always the morally righteous victims and the Whites the morally bankrupt oppressors. For example, the strong Leftist belief that Blacks can't be "racist", only Whites can.

The unprecedented bile directed against George W Bush can be explained by the fact that he embodied everything that this seven-fold ideology loathes.

Various subset ideologies and victim groups exist, of course, but I think they can usually be subsumed under one or more of these seven, the first three of which are the classics:

Race, Gender, Class.

LGBTism is a subset which combines feminist and multicultural themes, along with a hefty dose of secularism. The Animal Rights people are environmentalists: non-human nature comes first. ProPalestinian Israel-hatred is not about religion but about multiculturalism and transnationalism. Etc.

The most bizarre characteristic of liberalism, on the surface, is its supportive, exculpatory and admiring attitude toward Islam*, a religion characterized by divinely sanctioned violence, strong restrictions on women, primitive homophobia, autocracy and theocracy, and economic habits making for huge distinctions between the few rich and the many poor. But it is anti-Western (as is liberalism, "the ideology of Western suicide") and even though it is a religion, it is a Third World faith and so liberals have coded it as a Non-White race and so it has all the multicultural rights and privileges of People of Color. "Islamophobia" is almost always called "racist." Liberals live in constant vigilance against the spectre of a White Male American Christian Capitalist Police-State, a Republic of Gilead, while the Islamic Republic of Anywhere more than fits that bill, but is utterly ignored as any kind of threat.

*Now that I think of it, Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists had a period of non-aggression and cooperation, too. So it's not unprecedented.

Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo

In A Nutshell

Liberalism's Basic Flaw

Liberals believe that the chief role of the State is to force everyone to be equal, (ie, take vengeance on the successful). So when they are confronted with any group that they deem less well off than themselves, they are morally disarmed, completely and utterly. Any group that can achieve Victim Status is on their way to power and the (White) liberal's onlyjob is to give them what they want, no matter how much that damages him. And nothing may ever be expected, much less demanded, of them in return. It's a recipe for suicide: no other outcome is possible.

Demography as Destiny

"...then the end of the Roman republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing." Theodore Roosevelt, 1911

Multiculti Suicide

"Modern liberal societies in Europe and North America* celebrate their own pluralism and multiculturalism, arguing in effect that their identity is to have no identity."

Francis Fukuyama

Identity & Migration (2007)

*(White societies, that is.)

Equality's Dark Side (Oops, is that raciss?)

"“The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality or to get men to believe you love it. Thus, the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced ... to a single principle.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835